AN EXAMINATION OF JESUS CHRIST’S RESURRECTION AS A HISTORICALLY
VERIFIABLE EVENT
BY
JASON W. LIEBENOW
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF DIVINITY
PROF. JAMES F KORTHALS
WISCONSIN LUTHERAN SEMINARY
MEQUON, WISCONSIN
MARCH 2016
ABSTRACT
History is arguably the most important area of study. It not only contains every other
field of inquiry, but it defines and demonstrates what and who people are. In A.D. 30, historians
find a single event which alone is able to do just that: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Is an
event like the resurrection really historical? Can we honestly and without presumption declare
something as impossible as a resurrection from the dead to be a historical event? This paper,
through an examination of the historical discussion concerning the issue, the relevant sources,
and the main arguments proposed for either side, suggests that Jesus’ resurrection is a true event
of history. This paper will demonstrate the limits, use, and importance of such a discussion. It
will show how the earliest documents support the resurrection as historical fact and suggest the
universal meaning this event has for humanity. Finally, it will investigate the arguments which
seek either to prove or disprove the resurrection as a historical fact.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 3
THE RESURRECTION AND APOLOGETICS............................................................................ 4
The Limits of Apologetics........................................................................................................... 4
The Use of Apologetics ............................................................................................................... 4
The Importance of Apologetics ................................................................................................... 6
A Brief Look at the History of the Resurrection in Apologetics ................................................ 7
THE BIBLE ON THE RESURRECTION ................................................................................... 11
The Events Surrounding Jesus’ Resurrection............................................................................ 11
Jesus’ Death ........................................................................................................................... 11
Jesus’ Burial .......................................................................................................................... 12
The Empty Tomb ................................................................................................................... 13
Jesus’ Post-Mortem Appearances .......................................................................................... 14
The Changed Lives of the Disciples ...................................................................................... 15
Rumors that Someone Stole Jesus’ Body .............................................................................. 19
The Importance the Bible Places on the Resurrection .............................................................. 19
The Resurrection According to Jesus .................................................................................... 19
The Resurrection According to Jesus’ Disciples ................................................................... 21
ARGUMENTS FOR THE RESURRECTION ............................................................................. 23
The Sources ............................................................................................................................... 24
O’Collins’ Six Checks............................................................................................................... 25
The Resurrection and Prior Knowledge of God .................................................................... 25
The Resurrection and the Facts ............................................................................................. 26
The Resurrection and Christian Doctrine .............................................................................. 28
The Resurrection and its Sources .......................................................................................... 29
The Resurrection and Human Experience ............................................................................. 32
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE RESURRECTION ................................................................... 33
Counter-Theories Based on the Recorded Events ..................................................................... 34
The Hallucination/Wishful Thinking Theory ........................................................................ 34
The Swoon Theory ................................................................................................................ 34
ii
Spiritual Resurrection Theory ............................................................................................... 35
The Integrity of the Bible .......................................................................................................... 37
Dying-Rising Myths .............................................................................................................. 37
The Origin of the Gospel Accounts ....................................................................................... 38
Contradictions in the Gospel Accounts ................................................................................. 40
Philosophical Arguments .......................................................................................................... 41
Consistency............................................................................................................................ 41
Resurrection is Impossible..................................................................................................... 43
Assumptions .......................................................................................................................... 44
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 45
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 47
iii
INTRODUCTION
History defines us. It shows us where we have come from and suggests where we are
going. It tells us about the mistakes and successes of those from the past so that those from the
present can learn how to live their lives. It shows us what it really means to be human and what
reality truly is.
But what happens when we read historical documents which describe phenomena that
destroy our contemporary understanding of reality? Especially as scientific discovery and
knowledge have grown throughout history, what do we do when history records events that
modern scientists cannot explain? Most often, we do not take such accounts seriously and label
them stories, myths, and legends. They may contain some lesson, but nothing that would
threaten our concept of reality.
The Christian Bible recounts one such event: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This event
clashes with almost everything science and reason would conclude about reality and yet many
still claim that this event actually took place. Though all of medical science tells us that it is
impossible for someone who has died to come back to life, many emphatically defend Jesus’
resurrection as a “historically verifiable” event.1
Why should this resurrection be treated any differently from other accounts which are
simply deemed as myths and legends? Professor Gerald O’Collins asserts, “The resurrection…
seems to be by far the strongest claim for divine intervention within human history made by any
of the great religions.”2 The resurrection, unlike any other event in history, indicates a very
different reality than what we naturally experience. Among all religions and philosophies which
attempt to explain the origin of the world, Jesus’ resurrection holds a unique place. Christian
apologist, Josh McDowell explains, “All but four of the major world religions are based on mere
philosophical propositions. Of the four that are based on personalities rather than a philosophical
system, only Christianity claims an empty tomb for its founder.”3 O’Collins suggests that such a
1
Ted Cabal, “Defending the resurrection of Jesus: yesterday, today and forever,” The Southern Baptist
Journal Of Theology 18, no. 4 (2014), 116.
2
Gerald O’Collins, “Believing in the risen Christ,” in Gottes Zukunft – Zukunft der Welt: FS Jürgen
Moltmann, 68-77 (München: Chr Kaiser Verlag, 1986), 76.
3
Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict Volume I: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith
(San Bernardino, California: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., 1986), 180.
1
proposal morally obligates us to investigate the resurrection.4 To ignore Jesus’ resurrection and
its consequences for us would be the ultimate in depravity. McDowell proposes two alternatives:
either the resurrection is the “most wicked, vicious, heartless hoaxes ever foisted upon the minds
of men, or it is the most fantastic fact of history.”5
Jesus’ resurrection, furthermore, carries with it the entire weight of the Christian religion.
As McDowell says, “The resurrection of Jesus Christ and Christianity stand or fall together.”6 If
Jesus’ resurrection is not true, then none of the teachings of Christianity can be trusted.
O’Collins’ proposed moral obligation has very clear consequences. If Jesus’ resurrection
actually happened, then no one can ignore what he said. If, however, the resurrection did not
happen, then Jesus’ words deserve no such hearing.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is integral to the message of Christianity. Professor
Wilbur M. Smith asserts, “If you lifted out every passage in which a reference is made to the
Resurrection, you would have a collection of writings so mutilated that what remained could not
be understood.”7 Christianity does not even make sense if Jesus was not raised from the dead.
Smith explains,
All evidence of the New Testament goes to show that the burden of the good
news or gospel was not “Follow this Teacher and do your best,” but, “Jesus and
the Resurrection.” You cannot take that away from Christianity without radically
altering its character and destroying its very identity.8
The resurrection of Jesus Christ, therefore, is unique among supernatural events written about in
the past because of its intimate connection to what Jesus taught. If true, it has very real
consequences for people today.
This paper will seek to examine what has been proposed as proof that Jesus’ resurrection
either happened or did not happen with the goal of determining whether or not it is historically
verifiable. To this end, this paper will examine 1) the limits, use, and importance of apologetics,
2) what the Bible has to say about Jesus’ resurrection, and 3) the main arguments for and against
the historical viability of the event in question.
4
O’Collins, 76. (Italics in original.)
5
McDowell, 179.
6
Ibid.
7
Wilbur M. Smith, Therefore Stand: Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1965),
8
Ibid.
369-370.
2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This topic is no stranger to scholarly study. A quick search on the internet or in a library
catalogue quickly will find numerous sources all delving into the proofs and arguments declaring
Jesus’ resurrection to be either fact or fiction. Each work may contain any number of issues
under the topic. Some attempt to lay out the full history of what scholars have argued over the
centuries. Some simply lay out a few powerful points which the authors found particularly
convincing. Others contain full testimonials regarding the author’s personal investigation of the
subject.
This paper found Josh McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict to be invaluable.
In this book, McDowell attempts to thoroughly cover the subject, and does so primarily with
quotations from other sources. His work not only gives a framework for much of the relevant
scholarly effort, but also contains a bibliography of seventy-three other sources for further study
and research. McDowell’s book provides an excellent spring-board for anyone looking into the
issue for themselves.
Ted Cabal’s article for the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, entitled "Defending the
resurrection of Jesus: yesterday, today and forever,” provided an excellent and more recent
examination of the topic. It addressed both historical discussions of the issues and modern
scholarly work. Cabal further explains practically the use that knowledge of these points can
provide for a Christian specifically in the realm of evangelism.
These three sources, Gijsbert van den Brink’s article in Religion without ulterior motive,
entitled, “Christian faith without arguments? The relevance of reasons for belief in God,” Wilbur
M. Smith’s book, Therefore Stand: Christian Apologetics, and N. T. Wright’s The Resurrection
of the Son of God, each offered up excellent research and analysis of the data and scholarship
under this topic.
At the risk of spending too much time here, we will finish this section with Gerald
O’Collins’ article, “Believing in the risen Christ,” in Gottes Zukunft - Zukunft der Welt: FS
Jürgen Moltmann. O’Collins expertly organizes the arguments in favor of the historicity of
Jesus’ resurrection into six checks, which will be discussed later in this paper.
3
THE RESURRECTION AND APOLOGETICS
Since this topic falls into the realm of Christian apologetics, this paper will first focus on
the limits, use, and importance of attempting to verify the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection.
The Limits of Apologetics
In apologetics, the goal is not to convert people. Professor Gijsbert van den Brink
asserts, “If we are Christians, this is not because… the historical evidence… compelled us to
become a Christian… historical evidence as such can never turn one into a Christian.”9 He even
gives the example of Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide who honestly and sincerely believed that
Jesus was raised from the dead, but he was still not a Christian.10 Clearly, historical evidences
do not make people Christians and any such endeavor to do so will fail. Instead, van den Brink
explains, “the only reason for Christian faith: the Word of God.”11 Only God’s Word can
convert someone into a Christian; no historical evidence or proof is capable of this feat.
Historian Scot McKnight explains:
As a historian I think I can prove that Jesus died and that he thought his death was
atoning. I think I can establish that the tomb was empty and that resurrection is
the best explanation for the empty tomb. But one thing the historical method
cannot prove is that Jesus died for our sins and was raised for our justification…
Faith cannot be completely based on what the historian can prove.12
The Christian faith, while rooted in historical events, more importantly is a matter of trusting
God’s promises to us rather than acknowledging a historical record. No amount of historical
proof can do anything to convert a single person to faith in Jesus as their Savior.
The Use of Apologetics
That being said, seeking to establish proofs for Jesus’ resurrection does have many uses
for Christians, both as encouragement for believers and especially as a tool for evangelism.
While we can only ascribe faith in Christ to God as his gift to us, in the words of van den Brink,
“Nevertheless, historical considerations are significant, because they express the claim to
universal validity which is inherent in the Christian Gospel.”13 For van den Brink, attempting to
9
Gijsbert van den Brink, “Christian faith without arguments? The relevance of reasons for belief in God,”
in Religion without ulterior motive, 101-118 (Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2006), 113.
10
Ibid.
11
Ibid., 114.
12
Cabal, 122.
13
Brink, “Christian faith without arguments?” 117.
4
prove that this event is true is not the goal. In fact, he points out that even if all this work proves
nothing in the end, it can still evoke in the hearer a desire to know more about God’s Word.14
Professor Ted Cabal explains that he finds proofs of Jesus’ resurrection invaluable when
he is speaking to people about Jesus. In his words, “When someone says ‘no’ to the gospel, I
want to address whatever ideas and opinions they hold between them and Christ (2 Cor 10:5). I
want the unbeliever to reconsider.”15 Cabal finds Jesus’ resurrection to be a unique issue to
bring up with evangelism prospects. He believes it to be a necessary part of such conversations.
In his words:
In the case of Jesus and his resurrection, this must come up and be discussed if we
are having a true gospel conversation. Unlike any other apologetic issue or
strategy, the historical Jesus and his resurrection are non-negotiable issues
necessary to be discussed in full-orbed gospel discussions.16
By “non-negotiable,” Cabal means that Jesus and his resurrection have too much evidence for
people to simply ignore. Above, O’Collins explained that Jesus’ resurrection seems to be the
greatest evidence for God’s intervening in human history, which therefore necessitates
investigation.17 Cabal here uses that same line of thought to urge evangelism prospects to
consider the message of the gospel.
Van den Brink explains why he believes this appeal to historical proof is so effective.
When Christians speak about their faith, they come from the assumption that God exists and that
the Bible is truly his Word. Many people will not share these assumptions. Van den Brink
explains that if we try to force these assumptions on others, it often will strike them as a “mere
assertion… The absoluteness of the assertion is then hard to distinguish from a materially
different fanaticism.”18 Leaving people with this impression of Christianity will do little to
spread the message of the gospel and can even be harmful toward that end. Van den Brink
recommends that this is where the “mediation of reasoning” comes in.19 Coming at the issue
from grounds and assumptions on which both sides can agree allows for much more meaningful
14
Brink, “Christian faith without arguments?” 116.
15
Cabal, 130.
16
Ibid., 131. (Italics in original.)
17
O’Collins, 76.
18
Brink, “Christian faith without arguments?” 115.
19
Ibid. (Italics in original.)
5
conversation. This is why Cabal has found success with this strategy, because he is able to speak
from the same shared starting point of historical events, dates, places, and people.
Cabal admits that no two such conversations are the same, but often similar topics come
up. For example, in asserting Jesus’ authority, Cabal can “point out that Jesus of Nazareth is the
only person who ever died and came back to life bodily—never to die again.”20 Naturally, such
a claim is often questioned. In this case, Cabal says:
When they ask me how I know, I then share some of the basic resurrection
scholarship (empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and changed lives of the
disciples). Since these facts are widely accepted by critical scholars today, I ask
my friend how they account for these details.21
Such a strategy can build interest in hearing what God’s Word has to say about Jesus and what
he did. In other evangelism opportunities, Cabal explains that he will use what he calls the
“experiential approach,” which essentially boils down to: “if Christ is really risen from the
dead… It means that he is alive today and can be known experientially.”22 This line of thought
then allows Cabal to speak about his personal experience with his faith, again with the goal of
building his hearer’s interest in what God’s Word says.23 In spite of the limits of what historical
proofs for the resurrection can accomplish, they still have many uses to God’s people.
The Importance of Apologetics
More than that, looking for proofs for God’s people is important for Christians as well.
Van den Brink explains the vital importance of speaking about Jesus’ resurrection as a historical
event. He writes,
A gospel which cares only for the apostolic proclamation and denies that it either
can or should be tested for its historical antecedents, is really only a thinly veiled
Gnosticism or Docetism and… will prove ultimately to be no Gospel.24
According to van den Brink, if Christians refuse to look for historical proofs of Christianity, we
run the danger of giving the impression that either we are somehow intellectually superior to
others or that we do not believe that Jesus truly become a man, i.e., that he only appeared to be a
20
Cabal, 131-132.
21
Ibid., 132.
22
Ibid., 128.
23
Ibid., 129.
24
Gijsbert van den Brink, “How to speak with intellectual and theological decency on the resurrection of
Christ: a comparison of Swinburne and Wright,” Scottish Journal of Theology 61, no. 4 (2008), 419.
6
human being. Such beliefs would be disastrous; not only for evangelism, but also for
Christianity, as such beliefs run contrary to what God’s Word teaches. Van den Brink’s quote
also points to the danger that any false doctrine can lead to: the destruction of the gospel message
itself.
Furthermore, evangelism proves impossible in many situations without such examination
of the historical proofs. There must be more than simply explaining what our faith is. Van den
Brink explains that theologians cannot simply testify to their faith, but they also have to account
for it in “more generally accessible ways. If they refuse this task, the discussion with others
breaks down as soon as it becomes clear that these others do not feel themselves; touched in the
most profound way by the appeal of Jesus.”25 As Cabal mentioned above, there are many times
when people will hear God’s Word and will simply not be moved by it. If Christians witness to
their faith, but their listeners do not respond, is it enough for us to simply say, “Well, we tried,”
and then move on? As Cabal did in his examples, is it not more loving to reach out in other
ways; to try to find out what hindrances stand in the way of the gospel, so that we might take
them down and our listener might give the gospel another hearing? Such has been the thought of
Christians throughout history. In the words of van den Brink:
Christians of all ages have felt that something more should be said and can be said
in such a situation. They pointed to some peculiar facts in nature and history, as
well as to certain philosophical arguments, though not suggesting that their faith
was based upon such considerations.26
While Christians for thousands of years have recognized their faith as a gift from God that comes
through his Word, they have also seen benefit in reaching out to the world around them through
historical, scientific, and philosophical arguments as a way to introduce others to the faith-giving
Word of God.
A Brief Look at the History of the Resurrection in Apologetics
Apologetics, therefore, has played a strong role in Christianity throughout its history. In
spite of its limits, Christians have long seen the uses and importance of examining the historical
proofs of Jesus’ resurrection. Van den Brink points to 1 Peter 3:15 in order to explain that
Christians have long seen defending their faith and “giving the reason for the hope they have” as
25
Brink, “Christian faith without arguments?” 115.
26
Ibid., 115-116. (Italics in original.)
7
an integral part of how they glorify God – and doing so with gentleness and respect.27 Van den
Brink, therefore, concludes that it is the very nature of the Christian religion to defend the faith
using reasons that those who do not believe might understand, such as historical proofs.28
Christians have long found success in this as well. They attempted to get others to consider the
Christian faith as something worth serious thought. For example, some might point to the
viability of the Christian faith because it “renders an explanation of the universe and of some
strange facts in history… which might be more adequate and problem-solving than any
alternatives.”29
Christians, in their earliest apologetic efforts, found a unique importance in Jesus’
resurrection.30 Christians found that every generation had to again defend the assertion of the
Apostles’ Creed, “The third day he rose again from the dead.” In Cabal’s words, “for Christian
orthodoxy this has always meant that the bodily raising of Jesus is a historical fact—because this
was the clear witness of the apostles.”31 They used various forms of evidences: “the testimony
of authoritative witnesses (Luke 1:2; 2 Pet 1:16)… the original eyewitnesses themselves
appealed to publicly accessible historical facts to defend and present the truth of the resurrection
(Acts 4:20; 1 Cor 15:3-8; 1 John 1:1-3).”32
A pagan philosopher, Celsus, wrote against Christianity around the seventies of the
second century.33 According to Cabal, Celsus “wrote the first truly comprehensive challenge
against Christianity,” which was called On the True Doctrine.34 Before this writing, most of the
charges against Christians tended to be “gross misconceptions, such as the well-known equating
of the Lord’s Supper with cannibalism.”35 Celsus’ particularly effective attack on Christianity
came from two points he made. First, he said Christianity was “a corruption of Judaism, not a
27
Brink, “Christian faith without arguments?” 112.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid., 116.
30
Cabal, 117.
31
Ibid., 116.
32
Ibid.
33
Celsus, and R. Joseph Hoffmann, On the True Doctrine: A Discourse against the Christians (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1987), 30.
34
Cabal, 117.
35
Ibid.
8
completion.”36 Second, he “ridiculed… the resurrection of Jesus.”37 Celsus attacked the
resurrection using various “counter-theories, plausible ways to explain away the miracle.”38
Cabal makes a noteworthy insight, “Many of these theories, famously utilized throughout
history, continue in use to this day.”39 Cabal’s insight is significant because it shows the
framework for much of the debate on this issue throughout history. There have been new ways
of proposing the theories and philosophies, but for the most part the debate on Jesus’ resurrection
has focused on many of the same arguments, which this paper will examine later. For example,
Celsus suggested that the post-mortem appearances of Jesus may had been caused by daydreaming or perhaps they were simply the hallucinations of desperate people and their “wishful
thinking.”40 This is still a well-known argument for those who do not believe Jesus’ resurrection
to be a historical event.
In response to Celsus’ On the True Doctrine, Origen wrote his Contra Celsum which,
according to Cabal, was a “high water mark” in the defense of the resurrection for the early
Christian church throughout the first millennium.41 Origen addressed many of Celsus’ attacks on
Christianity and responded to them using reason and historical evidences. For example, in
response to Celsus’ hallucination theories, Origen pointed out that such a theory would have
made sense had the appearances happened at night. “But his idea of a vision in the daytime is
not convincing when the people were in no way mentally unbalanced and were not suffering
from delirium or melancholy.”42 Origen also reacts to Celsus’ accusation of mental problems in
those to whom Jesus appeared after his death. Origen responds, “There is no evidence of this in
the scriptural account which was the source upon which he drew for his criticism.”43 These
responses to the hallucination theory are still used today by those who debate the historicity of
the resurrection.
36
Cabal, 117.
37
Ibid.
38
Ibid., 118.
39
Ibid., 118-119.
40
Ibid. 119.
41
Ibid., 120.
42
Origen, and Henry Chadwick, Contra Celsum (Cambridge: University Press, 1953), 113.
43
Ibid.
9
In more recent history, a significant phenomenon has come to light in these debates in
favor of the historicity of the resurrection. Numerous books and testimonies recount the stories
of people who have investigated Jesus resurrection either from an impartial starting point or with
the express goal of disproving that the resurrection happened at all. Interestingly enough, many
of these researchers, after looking at all the evidence, concluded that Jesus’ resurrection is a
fact.44 This evidence speaks powerfully against anyone who would dismiss belief in the
resurrection as simple religious fanaticism. For example, Frank Morison, a lawyer and author of
Who Moved the Stone?, was brought up with a rationalistic background. He believed that the
resurrection was nothing more than a fairy tale which ruined the otherwise brilliant story of
Jesus. In order to correct this, Morison planned to write his own account of the tragic last days
of Jesus, in order to bring into focus the horrific crimes against Jesus as well as his incredible
heroism. He had planned to leave out anything that suggested the miraculous and to leave out
any mention of the resurrection. But when he studied the facts closely, he ended up changing his
mind, and he wrote his book instead to defend the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection.45 In a
similar account, two scholars from Oxford, Gilbert West and Lord Lyttleton determined to
destroy the very basis of the Christian faith. Lyttleton set out to prove that Saul of Tarsus never
actually converted to Christianity and West sought to show that Jesus never actually rose from
the tomb. After extensive independent research, Lyttleton found that Saul of Tarsus did become
a radically different man when he converted to Christianity, and West found that all the evidence
pointed definitely to Jesus having risen from the dead.46 Such accounts honestly prove nothing,
but they do suggest that there is more to look into as we examine the historical proofs of Jesus’
resurrection from the dead.
We have now examined the limits, use, and importance of apologetic efforts concerning
Jesus’ resurrection, as well as a brief look at the history of such work. This paper will now focus
on the evidences for and against the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. This section will start with
an examination of what the Bible records. Then this paper will look at the various pertinent
philosophical, rational, and historical arguments proposed in this debate.
44
McDowell, 190.
45
Michael Green, Man Alive (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1968), 54-55.
46
Ibid., 55-56.
10
THE BIBLE ON THE RESURRECTION
In our examination of the Bible’s stand on Jesus’ resurrection, we will look at two main
areas: 1) events of the biblical record which connect to the resurrection and 2) the significance
the Bible connects to the resurrection.
The Events Surrounding Jesus’ Resurrection
First off, three of the four Gospels, which record the life of Jesus, Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, record fantastical events which occurred early the first Easter morning, each culminating
with the words of an angel proclaiming that Jesus had “risen.”47 However, these events alone do
not give us enough information, as we can see the effect they had on the first people who
experienced them. The women were filled with fear and joy,48 trembling and bewilderment,49
and total confusion.50 Furthermore, as for the disciples, we find that they either did not believe
the women51 or had no idea what happened.52 Only John records that one disciple “saw and
believed.”53 However, the Bible also records four specific events which form the foundation of
most, if not all, claims that Jesus rose from the dead. While different apologists have chosen to
focus on some different events, for the most part, the main four are Jesus’ death and burial, the
empty tomb, Jesus’ post-mortem appearances, and the changed lives of the disciples. The logic
goes that nothing can explain these four events except Jesus’ bodily resurrection from the dead.54
Jesus’ Death
The Bible clearly records that Jesus died. Matthew and John write that on the cross Jesus
“gave up his spirit,”55 while Mark and Luke have he “breathed his last.”56 The most natural way
to understand either of these phrases would be that Jesus really did physically die. However, the
Bible contains still more proof of Jesus’ death. In the Gospel of John, the soldiers were going to
47
Matthew 28:1-7; Mark 16:1-7; Luke 24:1-7 (All biblical references are from the NIV 2011)
48
Matthew 28:8
49
Mark 16:8
50
John 20:2
51
Luke 24:11
52
Luke 24:12
53
John 20:8
54
Cabal, 125.
55
Matthew 27:50; John 19:30
56
Mark 15:37; Luke 23:46
11
break Jesus’ legs in order to speed his death, but they found that he was already dead. Instead,
one soldier thrust a spear into Jesus’ side, which brought a “sudden flow of blood and water.”57
McDowell cites a number of physicians, such as “Professor Day… Samuel Houghton, M.D., the
great physiologist from the University of Dublin… [and] Dr. William Stroud” who all point to
this information in John’s Gospel as proof not only that Jesus died, but that he died of a ruptured
heart.58 Michael Green explains the significance of the details in John’s Gospel:
Had Jesus been alive when the spear pierced His side, strong spouts of blood
would have emerged with every heart beat. Instead, the observer noticed semisolid dark red clot seeping out, distinct and separate from the accompanying
watery serum. This is evidence of massive clotting of the blood in the main
arteries, and is exceptionally strong medical proof of death. It is all the more
impressive because the evangelist could not possibly have realized its significance
to a pathologist. The “blood and water” from the spear-thrust is proof positive
that Jesus was already dead.59
John’s Gospel gives certainty to the fact that Jesus died on the cross. In addition to these insights
from the Gospel of John, all four Gospels record that Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate to take
down Jesus’ body.60 Mark records that Pilate was surprised that Jesus was dead already and that
he checked with the centurion on duty who assured Pilate that Jesus was in fact dead.61 Perhaps
it is not beyond the realm of possibility, but it does seem unlikely that a centurion whose job was
overseeing crucifixions would not recognize when someone under his guard had died, nor does it
seem likely that such a person would outright lie to an authority over him, like Pilate, about
whether Jesus was indeed dead or not, for there most certainly would have been punishments
lined up were the centurion to give wrong information to Pilate. By all accounts, the Bible
indicates that Jesus died on the cross.
Jesus’ Burial
The Bible states that Jesus’ body was buried in a special tomb. Van den Brink records
that Roman crucifixion customs generally placed the bodies anonymously in common graves,
however, the Bible clearly tells that Jesus body was laid in a unique place.62 After Jesus’ death,
57
John 19:31-34
58
McDowell, 198-199.
59
Green, 33.
60
Matthew 27:57-58; Mark 15:43; Luke 23:52; John 19:38
61
Mark 15:44-45
62
Brink, “How to speak with intellectual and theological decency on the resurrection of Christ,” 413.
12
and after Joseph of Arimathea took Jesus down from the cross, Matthew, Mark, and Luke record
that Joseph wrapped Jesus’ body in linen cloth and laid it in a tomb cut out of rock. Luke and
John record that this tomb had never had any one in it before. Matthew and Mark add the detail
that Joseph rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb.63 While none of the Gospels
give much detail about the stone that was rolled in front of the tomb, Mark notes that it was
difficult enough to remove that the women who went to the tomb early Easter morning were
worried about how they would get it open.64 This would indicate that the tomb was fairly well
sealed or at least difficult to open again. In addition to this information, John’s Gospel adds that
Nicodemus helped Joseph bury Jesus and that he brought about seventy-five pounds of a mixture
of myrrh and aloes, which they wrapped with Jesus’ body in the linen cloth.65 French Bishop
Emile Le Camus explains that these details are further proof that Jesus certainly died. He
explains that even if Jesus somehow was not dead when he was taken down from the cross, he
had to have died in the tomb, either because the contact of his body with the cold stone “would
have been enough to bring on a syncope through the congelation of the blood, owing to the fact
that the regular circulation was already checked,” or because the “strong odour of aromatics in a
place hermetically sealed would have killed a sick person whose brain was already seized with
the most unyielding swoon.”66 Clearly, all biblical accounts record that Jesus died and was
buried.
The Empty Tomb
The next significant event in the Gospels is the empty tomb. After the fantastic events
that the women saw, the Gospels of Luke and John record that the tomb was found to be empty.
Luke records that Peter went to investigate the tomb and John adds that another disciple went
with Peter. Luke records that Peter “saw the strips of linen lying by themselves.”67 John agrees
with what Luke writes but also adds that “the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head”
was also there, and that “the cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.”68 The
63
Matthew 27:59-60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53; John 19:41
64
Mark 16:3
65
John 19:39-40
66
É. Le Camus, The Life of Christ, translated by William A. Hickey, Vol. III (New York: The Cathedral
Library Association, 1908), 484.
67
Luke 24:12
68
John 20:6-7
13
Gospels do not record the exact time when the disciples discovered the tomb to be empty, but we
do get some indication that it was very early on Sunday morning. John states that Mary
Magdalene went to the tomb “early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark,” that,
after seeing the tomb open, she ran to the disciples, and, after telling the disciples, they, in turn,
ran to the tomb.69 How long this would have taken is unsure, but the account certainly indicates
that Mary and the disciples were rather hurried. In addition, it is unlikely that the women and the
disciples went to the wrong tomb. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all note that the same women who
went to the tomb Easter morning had seen the place where Jesus’ body was buried.70 John adds
that the tomb was near the place where Jesus had been crucified, which also would have made it
easier to find, and that the tomb was in a garden, which probably would have made it distinct
from other graves.71 While it was early in the morning and still dark, it seems that these details
would point to the women having a pretty good idea in which tomb Jesus was buried. The Bible
clearly indicates that Jesus’ tomb was found to be empty very early on Sunday morning, even
before Jesus’ disciples got there.
Jesus’ Post-Mortem Appearances
After Jesus’ tomb was found empty, the Gospels record that Jesus appeared to a number
of different people. Matthew records that Jesus appeared to the women who came to the tomb
early in the morning and to the eleven disciples.72 Mark says that Jesus appeared to Mary
Magdalene, to two people walking in the country, and to the eleven disciples.73 Luke’s account
tells about Jesus appearing to Cleopas and another of Jesus’ followers while they were walking
on the road to Emmaus, to Simon Peter, and to the disciples.74 The Gospel of John recounts
Jesus’ appearances to Mary Magdalene, to the eleven disciples except for Thomas, to the eleven
disciples with Thomas, and to 7 of the disciples.75 1 Corinthians, though not one of the Gospels,
says that Jesus appeared to Cephas, to the Twelve, to more than five hundred of the disciples at
69
John 20:1-4
70
Matthew 27:61; Mark 15:47; Luke 23:55
71
John 19:41-42
72
Matthew 28:8-9, 16-17
73
Mark 16:9, 12, 14; “The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9-20”
of Mark 16.
74
Luke24:15, 18, 34, 36
75
John 20:14, 16, 19, 24, 26; 21:2, 4, 7.
14
the same time, to James, to all the apostles, and to Paul.76 According to Luke, the disciples
believed they had seen a ghost. Jesus, however, reassured the disciples that he was not a ghost
and he proved it by having the disciples touch him and by eating some fish in front of them.77
John’s account shows that Thomas refused to believe, even after all of the other 10 disciples said,
along with the women, that Jesus was raised to life. Thomas wanted proof for himself. Jesus
then appeared to him along with the other disciples, and Thomas then believed.78 Even after the
resurrection, people doubted that something so impossible could happen, as well they should
have perhaps, but they were convinced by the facts. The Bible clearly demonstrates that Jesus
appeared to many people after he had died, been buried, and his tomb was found empty.
The Changed Lives of the Disciples
The final significant event recorded in the Bible which connects to Jesus’ resurrection is
the dramatically changed lives of the apostles. The Gospels do not record the disciples to be
great heroic figures. When Jesus is arrested in Gethsemane, Matthew and Mark tell us that all of
the disciples deserted Jesus and fled, one of them even fleeing naked when the guards tried to
seize him.79 The Gospels do say that Peter followed Jesus only to deny even knowing him three
times, and this after Peter had sworn that he would rather die than disown Jesus.80 John’s Gospel
is the only one to record any disciples even being present at Jesus’ crucifixion and he only
mentions that one of them was there.81 After Jesus’ arrest, none of the disciples defended Jesus,
none were willing to die with Jesus. After Jesus’ death, according to John’s Gospel, the disciples
were hiding behind locked doors “for fear of the Jewish leaders.”82 Far from heroic, the disciples
cower together and fear for their lives when their leader was arrested and put to death.
The book of Acts, however, paints a much different picture of the apostles. Far from
hiding and fearing for their lives, instead Peter boldly proclaims Jesus to be the Messiah and
76
1 Corinthians 15:5-8
77
Luke 24:36-43
78
John 20:24-29
79
Matthew 26:56; Mark 14:50-52
80
Matthew 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-27; Luke 22:54-62; John 18:15-18, 25-27; Matthew 26:35; Mark 14:31;
Luke 22:33
81
John 19:26
82
John 20:19
15
accuses the crowds of crucifying him, while calling them to repentance.83 All of the apostles
proclaimed the resurrection of the dead in Jesus in unison.84 Peter and John unashamedly
proclaim the same message before the Jewish leaders even though just previously they had been
hiding in fear of these same people.85 The Jewish leaders note Peter and John’s courage and
realize that they were “unschooled, ordinary men.”86 In the face of threats from the Jewish
leaders, the disciples continued to speak, telling the leaders that they had to obey God rather than
men.87 They continued to preach even after being arrested and thrown in prison.88 The apostles
were flogged, but not only did the flogging not keep them quiet, it gave them a reason to rejoice
and they preached the resurrection all the more!89 Acts is filled with such descriptions of the
disciples which seem opposite to their description in the Gospels.
Such a change in such people is unheard of. Even Gamaliel, one of the Pharisees, points
out that usually when a group grows around a single personality the followers tend to disperse
after they lose their leader; not so with the disciples.90 But rather than Jesus’ teachings coming
to nothing, the number of people who followed Jesus dramatically increased after his death.91
Beyond that, there is the peculiar person of Saul of Tarsus, who persecuted the church but then
ended up not only converting to Christianity himself but also spreading Christianity’s message!92
This dramatic change in Jesus’ disciples and the following growth of the church have
been very strong evidences in defense of Jesus’ resurrection throughout its apologetic history.
Origen writes about this in his Contra Celsum, asking, “If they had invented the story that Jesus
had risen from the dead, they would not have taught this with such spirit, in addition to the fact
that in accordance with this they not only prepared others to despise death but above all despised
83
Acts 2:36; 3:13
84
Acts 4:2
85
Acts 4:8-12
86
Acts 4:13
87
Acts 4:18-21; 5:29
88
Acts 5:25
89
Acts 5:40-42
90
Acts 5:36
91
Acts 2:41, 47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1, 7; 11:21, 24; 14:1, 21; 16:5; 17:4; etc.
92
Acts 9:1-6, 20
16
it themselves.”93 The incredible forces at work against the apostles and their message make it
unlikely that they would have made up Jesus rising from the dead.
American lawyer and jurist, Simon Greenleaf, in his Testimony of the Evangelists,
attempted to lay out the full weight of meaning found in the apostle’s dramatically changed lives.
1) The apostles all taught the same thing. They taught the same thing everywhere they went,
even when they faced the greatest discouragements and “most appalling errors that can be
presented to the mind of man.”94 That many people all teaching the same message concerning
Jesus and his resurrection shows that there was some clear event in which all of them believed.
2) Their master had just been put to death, sentenced as a common criminal.95 Such a public
disgrace and death would break up most upstart groups.
3) Jesus’ “religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world.”96 This point is
especially significant. The disciples’ mission was to replace all other religions with the one that
Jesus taught, and this was at a time when most people did not have our more modern concept of
a separation between religion and government. This fact would pit the disciples against all other
established religions, popular and unpopular, those who had rulers backing them and those which
were personally held in people’s own hearts. For this reason, the disciples could only expect
opposition of every kind. There were laws against what the disciples taught. “The interests and
passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them.”97 Any attempt of theirs
to spread this religion, even if done in the most “inoffensive and peaceful manner,” would only
meet with “contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments,
and cruel deaths.”98
4) In spite of the last point, they did spread this religion, enduring all of these miseries
and rejoicing over them!99 Such hardships would break most men. Even today, many clergy
leave the ministry because of burnout, and this in areas where they are not persecuted for their
93
Origen, 111.
94
Simon Greenleaf, The testimony of the evangelists examined by the rules of evidence administered in
courts of justice (New York: J. Cockcroft & company, 1874), 28-29.
95
Ibid., 29.
96
Ibid.
97
Ibid.
98
Ibid.
99
Ibid.
17
faith. The apostles endured the absolute worst of hardships and they were overjoyed at that fact.
Moreover, not one of them ever quit. According to tradition, only one of the disciples died of
natural causes, and this while he was exiled on the Island of Patmos. Every other disciple died a
martyr’s death.100 But far from discouraging them, these miserable and torturous deaths only
served to make those still living even more vigorous and resolute! According to Greenleaf, “the
annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and
unblenching courage.”101
5) In light of this kind of persecution, no one could continue in such a life if it were all
based on a lie.102 Because of the serious persecutions that the disciples faced and which anyone
who would believe their teaching would also have to endure, the disciples had every reason to
carefully reflect on the basis of their faith. They would have had ample opportunity to sit and
think on the evidences of the teachings which they asserted as facts and truths. As they prepared
to face all the persecutions they did, as they remembered what they had gone through already,
the disciples could not have persisted in such behavior which would bring them such suffering if
they did not earnestly and honestly believe that what they taught was absolutely the truth; that
Jesus truly did rise from the dead! Greenleaf adds,
If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every
human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have
persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to
encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to
endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace,
no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among
men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.103
Remember, the disciples were not some people from another planet who knew nothing of
emotions. They were people just like anyone else. They possessed the same constitution as the
rest of humanity. They were moved by the same motives, hopes, joys, sorrows, fears, passions,
temptations, and infirmities as anyone else.104 But the disciples demonstrate this incredible
reaction to what happened to Jesus after he was buried. Greenleaf sums up, “If then their
100
Who Were the 12 Disciples? [accessed November 25, 2015] online:
http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/who-were-twelve-disciples.
101
Greenleaf, 29.
102
Ibid.
103
Ibid., 29-30.
104
Ibid., 30.
18
testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication.”105 Nothing can account
for this drastic change in the character of the disciples other than the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Rumors that Someone Stole Jesus’ Body
As we close our look at the events recorded in the Gospels, we also note that the Bible
does address and refute one counter-theory: that Jesus’ body was stolen from the tomb. Matthew
records that the chief priests and Pharisees knew that Jesus predicted that he would rise from the
dead and they believed that his disciples would try to steal Jesus’ body and then tell people that
he had come back to life. In order to avoid this, they had Pilate send guards to watch the tomb
for the three days that Jesus had predicted.106 But when the guards instead came back to the
chief priests and told them about the fantastic occurrences that had happened at the tomb on
Easter morning, the chief priests paid them to spread the rumor that the disciples came during the
night and stole Jesus’ body.107 Matthew’s Gospel even hints that such a failure of the guards
would have been punished but the chief priests saw to it that the soldiers did not get in trouble,
even though the rumor they spread would indicate that they had not done their jobs.108 So the
Gospel of Matthew too acknowledges and refutes one counter-theory proposed by those who
wished to discredit Jesus’ resurrection.
The Importance the Bible Places on the Resurrection
Beyond the events recorded in the Bible, it also heavily connects Jesus’ resurrection to
the Bible’s overall message; to the point that everything the Bible says depends on Jesus bodily
rising from the dead.
The Resurrection According to Jesus
The Gospels record Jesus’ anticipation of his death and resurrection. He made this
prediction multiple times to his disciples.109 Furthermore, Jesus had made this prediction enough
times that even his enemies knew that Jesus believed he would rise from the dead three days
after he died.110 According to these words, even Jesus’ contemporaries expected Jesus to rise
105
Greenleaf, 30.
106
Matthew 27:62-66
107
Matthew 28:2-4, 11-15
108
Matthew 28:14
109
Matthew 16:21; 17:9, 23; 20:19; 27:64; Luke 9:22; 13:32; 18:33; 24:7; John 2:19, 22
110
Matthew 27:63
19
from the dead, even if Jesus’ disciples did not seem to understand.111 This means that Jesus’
resurrection was closely connected with his message. Before the resurrection even happened,
people were looking for it to happen. Smith points out the further significance of Jesus’
predictions:
If our Lord said, frequently, with great definiteness and detail, that after He went
up to Jerusalem He would be put to death, but on the third day He would rise
again from the grave, and this prediction came to pass, then it has always seemed
to me that everything else that our Lord ever said must also be true.112
Jesus’ predictions and the fulfillment thereof demonstrate Jesus to be not only someone who is
unique to history, but also as someone whose word is true. The resurrection, therefore, backs up
Jesus’ message as truthful.
But Jesus used the resurrection for more than just to prove his knowledge of the future.
Jesus also specifically pointed to his resurrection as the authentication of his entire ministry. In
the Gospel of Matthew, when the Pharisees and teachers of the law ask Jesus for a sign, he says
that they will receive no sign except the sign of Jonah, “For as Jonah was three days and three
nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the
heart of the earth.”113 Of all the miracles recorded in the Gospels, Jesus proclaims this miracle to
be the sign for people. The Gospel of John speaks even more clearly. After Jesus had cleared
out the temple of buyers, sellers, and moneychangers, the Jews ask Jesus for a sign to prove his
authority. Jesus offers them this: “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”114
John’s Gospel later explains, “The temple he had spoken of was his body.”115 Reverend R.
M’Cheyne Edgar elaborates:
Here is a teacher of religion and He calmly professes to stake His entire claims
upon His ability, after having been done to death, to rise again from the grave.
We may safely assume that there never was, before or since, such a proposal
made… To talk of this extraordinary test being invented by mystic students of the
prophecies, and inserted in the way it has been into the Gospel narratives, is to lay
too great a burden on our credulity. He who was ready to stake everything on His
111
Matthew 28:17; Mark 16:11, 14; Luke 24:12, 25-26; John 20:9
112
Smith, 419.
113
Matthew 12:38-40
114
John 2:18-19
115
John 2:21
20
ability to come back from the tomb, stands before us as the most original of all
teachers, one who shines in His own self-evidencing light!116
By pointing to his own resurrection from the dead, during his life, as the authentication of all that
he does during his life, Jesus once again puts himself into a unique place in history. Were Jesus
to not to rise from the dead, people would be free to simply forget everything he ever said and
did. If, however, Jesus did rise from the dead, then his words demand a worldwide audience.
Many have found this to be a logical strategy on God’s part. According to their line of
thought, given the incarnation, if God wanted to prove that this particular person truly was God,
it makes sense that God would “provide a kind of divine signature on this person’s life by means
of some super-miracle.”117 The argument continues that this miracle must then be viewed by the
contemporaries of that particular person as “God’s authenticating approval of that person’s
life.”118 Either way, the Bible clearly shows that Jesus proclaimed his resurrection to be the
authentication of his ministry.
The Resurrection According to Jesus’ Disciples
Jesus was not alone in pointing to the resurrection as vitally importance to his work. His
disciples also understood Jesus’ resurrection as the very basis of their faith and preaching. Smith
points to Peter’s sermon on Pentecost as a perfect example.119 According to Smith, everything
Peter says there is
wholly and entirely founded on the Resurrection. Not merely is the Resurrection
its principle theme, but if that doctrine were removed there would be no doctrine
left. For the Resurrection is propounded as being (1) the explanation of Jesus’
death; (2) prophetically anticipated as the Messianic experience; (3) apostolically
witnessed; (4) the cause of the outpouring of the Spirit, and thus accounting for
religious phenomena otherwise inexplicable; and (5) certifying the Messianic and
Kingly position of Jesus of Nazareth.”120
According to Jesus’ disciples, the resurrection meant everything. Throughout the New
Testament, the apostles continually pointed to the resurrection as the foundation for their
teaching. Peter points to Jesus’ death as being part of God’s plan because it led to Jesus’
116
R. M’Cheyne Edgar, The Gospel of a Risen Saviour (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1892), 32. (Italics in
original.)
117
Brink, “How to speak with intellectual and theological decency on the resurrection of Christ,” 412.
118
Ibid.
119
Acts 2:14-36
120
Smith, 230.
21
resurrection.121 They asserted that Messianic prophecy pointed to the resurrection.122 They
demonstrated how the resurrection showed without a doubt that Jesus truly is Lord and
Messiah.123 Paul explains how the resurrection worked his miraculous conversion.124 The
disciples linked the incredible phenomena of the early church recorded in Acts, such as the
miracles, to the resurrection.125
The apostles linked the resurrection even to the most basic aspects of their faith. The
apostle Paul connects faith in the resurrection with faith in God.126 He makes faith in the
resurrection vital to salvation, even going so far as to say that if Jesus was never raised from the
dead, then faith would be useless and we would all still be in our sins.127 He proclaims that
Jesus’ resurrection proves that the rest of us will also rise from the dead.128 He further
establishes Jesus’ resurrection (and our resulting resurrections) as the basis and reason for the
repentance and godly life of sanctification which is to follow faith in God.129 Without the
resurrection, the disciples would have had nothing to say.
Since the disciples found Jesus’ resurrection so important to their doctrine and teaching,
they strongly defended it. They assured people that they were witnesses of it.130 The disciples
offered evidences, just as people do today, in order to demonstrate the basis for their faith. Van
den Brink explains Paul’s apologetic in the opening verses of 1 Corinthians 15:
Clearly, in this passage Paul uses the post-paschal appearances of Jesus in order to
convince the Corinthians of the trustworthiness of the resurrection-reports. The
historical fact that Jesus met so many people after his death and burial should
function as a good argument or reason for believing that Jesus was truly raised
from the dead.131
121
Acts 2:24
122
Acts 2:31; 26:22-23
123
Acts 5:30-31; 13:26-37; 17:31; Ephesians 1:20; 2 Timothy 2:8
124
Acts 26:8-21
125
Acts 4:10
126
Romans 4:23-25; 8:34; 10:9; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, 11, 14, 17; Colossians 2:12-15; 1 Thessalonians
1:10; 1 Peter 1:21
127
1 Corinthians 15:14, 17
128
Romans 6:8; 8:29; 1 Corinthians 6:14; 15:16,18-23,26; 2 Corinthians 4:14; Ephesians 2:6
129
Romans 6:4, 8-11; 7:4; 8:10-11; 1 Corinthians 15:30-32; 2 Corinthians 5:15; Col 3:1
130
Acts 2:32; 3:15; 5:30,32; 10:39-41
131
Brink, “Christian faith without arguments?” 109.
22
Even the Bible provides attacks against and apologetic proofs for Jesus’ resurrection from the
dead. However, in the Bible, apologists could point to those who had seen Jesus alive after his
death as proofs of the resurrection. Today, we must work with the testimonies of those witnesses
as found in the Bible. The Bible, therefore, clearly shows that Jesus did rise bodily from the
dead, as shown by the events it records and by the importance it places on it.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE RESURRECTION
This section will examine the arguments for the possibility of verifying Jesus’
resurrection historically. The first, and most difficult, question in this section is how do we
prove a historical event? How we answer this question can largely determine the answer to this
entire paper. For example, McDowell believes that the resurrection is a verifiable historical
event, saying, “When an event takes place in history and there are enough people alive who were
eyewitnesses of it or had participated in the event, and when the information is published, one is
able to verify the validity of an historical event (circumstantial evidences).”132 McDowell
believes that this is how the Gospels were written, and thus they are acceptable as historical
documents. Professor Mark Allen Powell, however, disagrees with McDowell. He explains,
Historical Jesus studies is a science that attempts to determine what can be known
of Jesus on the basis of historical research alone, that is through the analysis of
data pertaining to Jesus in accord with the same standards that would be
employed when analyzing data pertaining to any other figure from antiquity. Such
analysis is supposed to be free of religious (or anti-religious) bias, and scholars
engaged in the field call each other to task when they suspect that one’s
conclusions have been influenced by personal predilection.133
Powell puts the main focus on consistency. In attempting to verify Jesus’ resurrection, are we
applying the same rules as we would use for verifying any other event in history? He also points
out that, though this tries to be an exact science, it often leads to difficulties due to biases, either
religious or anti-religious. However, Powell finally comes down to say the point is to find not
“what might be true of Jesus, but what is verifiable.”134 He therefore denies the possibility of
proving the resurrection historically because he does not believe that we can apply the same
132
McDowell, 189.
133
Mark Allan Powell, “Historical Jesus Studies Today: An Update,” The Bible and Interpretation,
[accessed February 11, 2016] online: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/2014/06/pow388006.shtml.
134
Ibid. (Italics in original.)
23
principles to Jesus which we apply to other figures of history. Powell sums up, “Thus, if (as a
Christian) you want to believe Jesus was born to a virgin, that’s fine, but (as a historian) you
must recognize that this is not verifiable–at least, not in accord with any criteria that are normally
employed for historical research.”135 Rather than settle on a definition of “historically verifiable”
at this point, this paper will examine those arguments which have proved convincing for others
throughout this debate.
The Sources
In the search for historical proofs, the earliest sources available maintain a spot of unique
importance. Significantly, the earliest sources available today are those found in the Gospel
accounts. This proves a struggle for many people because of the ascribed religious bias.
However, many assert that this poses a powerful argument for the historicity of the resurrection.
Cabal claims, “No rejections of Jesus and his resurrection… are based on scientific, historical,
archaeological, or manuscript evidence. All rejections are philosophically (e.g., miracles cannot
happen) or theologically based (e.g., Jesus cannot be the savior of the world).”136 In what field
of study would such a method be acceptable? For the most part such strategies would be laughed
out of the room. However, Cabal again points out, “It matters little that these attacks are short on
solid evidence and long on philosophy and theological speculation, they are nonetheless
influential.”137 Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar who was appointed regius professor at
Cambridge in 1870, explains his opinion of why these methods are allowed in this area of study,
“Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of
deficiency in the proof of it.”138 Granted, one could certainly find religious bias in Westcott’s
words, but his point still stands. There is no evidence against Jesus’ resurrection.
Even the early literature following the Gospels continues to support Jesus’ resurrection,
but it cannot escape the accusation of religious bias. Apologist Bernard Ramm points to the
Church Fathers,
Unbelief has to deny all the testimony of the Fathers… It must assume that these
men either did not have the motivation or the historical standards to really
135
Powell.
136
Cabal, 132.
137
Ibid., 116.
138
Paul E. Little, Know Why You Believe (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970), 30.
24
investigate the resurrection of Christ. The Fathers, considered by the Eastern
Orthodox Catholic Church and by the Roman Catholic Church and Anglican
Church as authoritative or highly authoritative, respected by the Reformers, and
given due weight by all theologians, are written off the record by unbelief. They
are deemed trustworthy for data about apostolic or near-apostolic theology, yet in
matters of fact they are not granted a shred of evidential testimony. But this must
be, or unbelief cannot make its case stick.139
Thus all the earliest sources indicate that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, however, many
historians would compare such things to any other fantastical and miraculous myth or legend that
can be found in history.
O’Collins’ Six Checks
Beyond the sources, historians and apologists have suggested a number of evidences to
ascertain the historicity of the resurrection. O’Collins suggests six checks which have summed
up the general proofs apologists use in this debate: “partial continuity with Old Testament
beliefs, correspondence with facts, coherence of meaning, status of witnesses, practical results
throughout history, and personal confirmation in the present.”140 These “six checks” will
provide the outline for our look at those proofs for the resurrection which have proved the most
well-known in the debate.
The Resurrection and Prior Knowledge of God
In the first place, O’Collins asks, “Did this new truth (»Jesus has been raised from the
dead«) stand in some continuity with what the Jewish people already knew of God?”141 With
this question, O’Collins wants to examine whether there was any reason for people to expect that
a resurrection should happen. If a miracle like Jesus’ resurrection were to occur without any
connection to what people at the time had believed about God, the resurrection would have been
uncharacteristic, random, and in all other senses out-of-sync with the religion that Jesus
proclaimed. O’Collins answers this question by pointing to the Israelites’ belief in God’s power
to raise the dead:
The Israelites pinned their faith to Yahweh as the God of life… In many forms,
God gave and restored life to both individuals and the people. Yahweh was also
139
Bernard Ramm, Protestant Christian Evidences (Chicago: Moody Press, 1953), 206. (Italics in
original.)
140
O’Collins, 70.
141
Ibid. (Italics in original.)
25
believed to have consistently revealed himself to be supremely just, powerful and
faithful. These ancient convictions about God… eventually led many Jews to
expect a resurrected life after death.142
As evidence of O’Collins’ words, the Old Testament does contain such phrases as, “dead will
live,”143 and, “Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting
life...”144 With words like these in the hands of the Jews, it is by no means out of the question
that they would have accepted the idea of someone rising from the dead. According to
O’Collins, however, Jesus’ resurrection was not exactly what the Jews would have expected, “to
assert the resurrection of one individual (Jesus) before the end of the world introduced a new
element.”145 O’Collins does not believe that the Jews would have anticipated the specific
situation of Jesus’ resurrection. Some debate with O’Collins on this subject of whether or not
the Jews before Christ were in a position to understand that an individual, i.e. the Messiah, would
die and be raised to life.146 However, his point still stands: “Granted the novelty of the claim
about Jesus’ resurrection, this claim was, nevertheless, not totally and utterly new but stood in
some continuity with prior beliefs about God.”147 It makes sense with what the Jews already
believed about God that an individual would be raised to life. Therefore, Jesus’ resurrection
happened in a historical situation where it could not only have happened, but potentially could
have even been expected.
The Resurrection and the Facts
The second check asks, does Jesus’ resurrection fit with the facts? This check, which we
can call the “best explanation,” is one of the most popular and powerful proofs of scholars who
defend the resurrection as a historical event. It is a powerful argument if one defines history in a
way that makes verifying miracles impossible.148 Cabal explains that this argument is “not
trying to prove the resurrection,” rather, it simply states that “the resurrection explains the facts
142
O’Collins, 70.
143
Isaiah 26:19
144
Daniel 12:2-3
145
O’Collins, 71.
146
Isaiah 53:11; Job 19:25
147
O’Collins, 71.
148
Cabal, 125.
26
better than the naturalistic alternatives.”149 Instead of looking at the Bible’s claim about Jesus’
resurrection, it looks at events that people have less of a problem accepting and looks for an
explanation of how all of them could occur.
Four historical facts must be explained: Jesus’ burial, his empty tomb, his postmortem appearances, and the disciples’ resurrection belief… the best explanation
for these four facts is Jesus’ resurrection from the dead. It is noteworthy that ever
since Origen, different apologists may choose different historical facts which
demand explanation. But they all come from the same small pool, with the three
main ones being empty tomb, appearances, and changed lives.150
The argument states that these four facts, significantly more believable than an individual rising
from the dead, cannot be explained in any logical way except that Jesus was indeed raised from
the dead.
N. T. Wright’s study of the resurrection narratives concludes the historical
probability of the empty tomb and appearances being so high as to be virtually
certain, comparable to the death of Augustus or the fall of Jerusalem… the debate
is not really about these established historical facts but the best explanation for
them.151
If these events all did happen, how can they be connected except by the actual bodily
resurrection of Jesus Christ. O’Collins asserts that “this kind of positive (the appearances) and
negative (the empty tomb) evidence was available because the resurrection had happened.”152
Wright further notes that no one of these facts would require Jesus’ resurrection as an
explanation, but it is rather the combination of them. “The empty tomb alone would be a puzzle
and a tragedy. Sightings of an apparently alive Jesus, by themselves, would have been classified
as visions or hallucinations, which were well enough known in the ancient world.”153 Wright
concludes, “All that is required to demonstrate that the tomb-plus-appearances combination is
not a necessary condition for the rise of early Christian belief is the possibility that some other
circumstance, or combination of circumstances, was equally capable of generating this belief.”154
There is no theory (misplaced tomb, mistaking someone else for a resurrected Jesus, swoon
theory) that can adequately explain how Jesus’ burial, his empty tomb, his post-mortem
149
Cabal, 128.
150
Ibid., 125.
151
Ibid., 127.
152
O’Collins, 72.
153
N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003), 686.
154
Ibid., 694.
27
appearances, and the resulting rise of Christianity can be connected.155 For this reason, many
assert that “anything less than a historical, bodily resurrection of Jesus simply cannot account for
the evidence.”156 Wright also points to the early Christian church for the same argument.
Wright wonders how it was possible that the earliest Christians were so confident
that Jesus was raised from the dead. He suggests that all details point in one
direction here: they must have considered the traditions concerning the empty
tomb and the appearances of the risen Lord as historically credible. These
traditions, in turn, can only be reasonably explained by the actual bodily
resurrection of Jesus. Alternative explanations are less convincing, because they
have less puzzle-solving capacity (to use the Kuhnian phrase), e.g. when it comes
to clarifying the rise of Christianity.157
Scholars have therefore shown that, while some may not believe Jesus’ resurrection to be
historically verifiable, no other explanation can sufficiently explain the connection between the
more verifiable and accepted events surrounding Jesus’ resurrection.
The Resurrection and Christian Doctrine
With the third check, O’Collins asks, “Can the various levels and patterns of meaning in
the event of Christ’s resurrection be systematically related in ways that are mutually
consistent?”158 This check is similar to the first, but while the first looked at prior meaning of
the event, this third check examines the meaning moving forward from the event. Again, the
point is to determine whether the occurrence of the resurrection makes sense with the ideas that
Jesus and his followers set forth as the doctrines of their religion. In O’Collins’ words, “if the
alleged resurrection did not serve coherently such a total pattern of meaning, its plausibility
would be severely jeopardized.”159 O’Collins points to a book of Christian doctrine written by
Scheffczyk, which uses Jesus’ resurrection as the starting point. “By clarifying all major
Christian doctrines in the light of Christ’s resurrection and vice versa, he [Scheffczyk] moves
towards some kind of coherent totality of meaning which inevitably recommends the truth of the
particular claim about the resurrection.”160 This further matches with the scholars’ work which
this paper observed above in the examination of the importance of Jesus’ resurrection in
155
Cabal, 124.
156
Ibid., 123.
157
Brink, “How to speak with intellectual and theological decency on the resurrection of Christ,” 415.
158
O’Collins, 73.
159
Ibid., 74.
160
Ibid.
28
Christian doctrine. Smith asserts that, were one to remove all passages of Scripture that made
any sort of reference to the resurrection, no coherent meaning could be made out of what
remained.161 Smith writes, “All evidence of the New Testament goes to show that the burden of
the good news or gospel was not ‘Follow this Teacher and do your best,’ but, ‘Jesus and the
Resurrection.’ You cannot take that away from Christianity without radically altering its
character and destroying its very identity.”162 The resurrection therefore passes this check as its
occurrence not only connects with the rest of what Jesus and his disciples taught and understood,
but it was vital to everything they taught and understood.
The Resurrection and its Sources
The fourth check is one of the most vital and contested: can the sources be trusted? “This
test… examines the status of the »authorities« in question.”163 O’Collins explains his line of
thought here,
Most of what we believe, we believe on authority anyway. In such fields as the
natural sciences and biology, we accept innumerable things often simply on the
word of the relevant experts. Even research scientists cannot possibly check for
themselves the truth of much which they accept; frequently they have to take for
granted the results established by others.164
True though O’Collins’ words may be, he admits that when it comes to Jesus’ resurrection, we
cannot simply believe the authorities here as we do authorities in science or other areas of
history. O’Collins continues,
Believing in the resurrection means much more than simply accepting from a
recognized scientist the results of certain experiments which we cannot repeat for
ourselves… more than merely believing the word of a seemingly reliable witness
for a historical event at which we were not personally present. Accepting Jesus’
resurrection… involves answering the fundamental question about the nature,
meaning and destiny of our own human existence.165
Since so much rides on whether or not Jesus rose from the dead, simply believing it because the
authorities say so is not as acceptable as believing what recent studies say about the health
benefits of drinking coffee.
161
Smith, 369-370.
162
Ibid.
163
O’Collins, 74.
164
Ibid.
165
Ibid.
29
In examining the authorities, two points must be established: 1) the “quality of conviction
exhibited by the Easter witnesses”166 and 2) “the Testimony of those chosen Witnesses,
transmitted down in Writings.”167 As O’Collins examines the belief of the disciples in the
resurrection, he notes,
The gospels refer to some confusion and hesitation on the occasion of the Easter
encounters (for example, Matt 28,17 and Luke 24,36-43). But these are only
initial doubts and they trust the evidence of their experience in testifying with
complete conviction to Jesus as living and therefore risen from the dead.168
Were the disciples to show any continued hesitation or doubts moving forward from the initial
discoveries, their testimony would greatly suffer. Furthermore, O’Collins even points out, “If
the first disciples claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, but continued to lead thoroughly ordinary,
unheroic lives, this would count severely against their testimony.”169 But instead, as noted
above, we find the disciples completely changed by the events of the first Easter morning. In
O’Collins’ words, “Saul the persecutor became the missionary to the gentiles; Peter the broken
failure became the official witness to the resurrection. In both cases their conviction led them
eventually to death by martyrdom.”170 The disciples, after this event, are so completely sure of
what they believe that nothing, not even their own deaths could stop them from proclaiming
Jesus’ resurrection. Lawyer Sir Edward Clarke explains that he had secured the verdict in court
on evidence that was not nearly as compelling as what he sees from the apostles. In his words,
“Inference follows on evidence, and a truthful witness is always artless and disdains effect. The
Gospel evidence for the resurrection is of this class, and as a lawyer I accept it unreservedly as
the testimony of truthful men to facts they were able to substantiate.”171
If the apostles themselves are trustworthy, the next question depends on whether we can
trust their writings. Can we be sure that the Gospels we have today come from those same
apostles? Gilbert West, mentioned above as a man who sought to disprove Jesus’ resurrection
166
O’Collins, 74.
167
Gilbert West, Observations on the History and Evidences of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (4th ed.
London: Printed for R. Dodsley, 1749), 217.
168
O’Collins, 74.
169
Ibid., 75.
170
Ibid. (Italics in original.)
171
John R. Stott, Basic Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1971),
47.
30
but ended up converting to Christianity, wrote a great deal on this topic. West sought to
establish the authority of the apostles’ testimony in the writing we have today, which, in his
words, were “either penned by themselves, or authorized by their Inspection and
Approbation.”172 West believed that the names attached to the New Testament books of the
Bible are those of the real authors. He explains his line of thought,
To prove the Apostles and Evangelists to be the Authors of those Scriptures,
which are now received under their Names, we have the concurrent Attestation of
all the earliest Writers of the Church, deduced by an uninterrupted and
uncontrolled Tradition, from the very Times of the Apostles. Which is such an
Authentication of these sacred Records, as is not to be overturned by bare
Presumptions, and a surmised and unproven Charge of Forgery.173
West finds no reason to doubt that the New Testament books really did originate from the
apostolic witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection. West is furthermore amazed to find in his studies that
while the books of the New Testament record that miracles, speaking in tongues, casting out evil
spirits and the like were very often found among the first converts to Christianity and even to
those in some of the generations following, it seems that none of these people took these
miraculous manifestations of the spirit as proof that they had some kind of immediate revelation
from God.174 Instead, these Christians unfailingly appealed to the Holy Scriptures and to the
authoritative word of the apostles.175 For example, Paul teaches and instructs the Galatians in
many basic teachings of the faith, even though they had the Spirit and miracles in their midst.
Paul even uses these miracles to teach them the truth.176 Since these early Christians esteemed
the authority of the apostles to such a degree, West believes it simple logic that these same
people would seek the apostles’ teaching in writing. West says that these Christians, who were
to pass the apostles’ message, upon which their salvation depended, on to future generations
would have recognized the many cases where their own understandings and messages passed on
by word of mouth had gone contrary to what the apostles’ taught.177 Since they recognized their
own weakness in this manner, it makes no sense that they would trust future generations to keep
172
West, 217.
173
Ibid., 218.
174
Ibid., 219-220.
175
Ibid., 220.
176
Galatians 3:1-6
177
West, 220-221.
31
the apostles’ teaching pure if they themselves were not able to do it.178 For these reasons, West
is convinced that these early Christians obviously would have sought out writings, either of the
apostles themselves or approved by them to pass their teachings on.179 West believes that there
is no way that the apostles did not have their teachings written down. If the apostles of their own
accord and because of their deep care for those who followed what they taught did not decide to
write down their teachings, and if the Holy Spirit himself did not suggest to them that they do
this, surely those who followed their message and looked upon them as teachers who had been
called and inspired by the Spirit of God himself would have pursued such writings.180 West
further points to the Gospel of Luke as proof that there were others who wrote down what the
apostles taught. However, it again makes sense that among those who did write these things
down, those writings which had greater authority, as in those “either penned by the Apostles
themselves, or authorized by their Inspection and Approbation,” surely superseded all others
with the result that most of them simply died out, but those authoritative works have been
preserved into modern times and maintain the same esteem and authority which they had among
these early Christians.181 For these reasons, West is convinced of the integrity of the Scriptures
still maintained today. Thus the authorities are proved trustworthy both by their personal
convictions and by the integrity of their writings passed down to modern times.
The Resurrection and Human Experience
O’Collins’ fifth and sixth checks involve human experience. The fifth check looks at the
experience of others: “What has been the quality of the commitment produced by this
confession? … Has the truth of the resurrection shown up in practice by leading believers into
deeper union with God and with one another?”182 The point here is not, as O’Collins says, “a
mere appeal to a certain consensus… rather: What testable and valuable differences has belief in
the resurrection made in human lives?”183 O’Collins further clarifies his question by asking,
“Have the lives of those who accepted Christ’s resurrection proved (a) deeply satisfying and
178
West, 220-221.
179
Ibid., 221.
180
Ibid.
181
Ibid., 222.
182
O’Collins, 75.
183
Ibid.
32
worthwhile to them, and (b) productive, even heroically productive, for others?”184 In answer,
O’Collins looks to the Church Fathers:
Origen, Athanasius and other Church Fathers found such social and historical
confirmation for this belief by observing the effects it had produced and continued
to produce in the life of the Christian Church… the resurrection vindicated itself
in lived experience by transforming the lives of the faithful.185
Such an experience has been observed by people throughout history. Christianity has been
shown to have been deeply satisfying to those who followed the word and heroically productive
for others. At the same time, however, there certainly have been Christians who were not very
satisfied at all with what they learned and whose lives even proved harmful to others. This is
usually the case with human experience: it ranges all over the spectrum. O’Collins does not
answer what happens for these people, but he does make his point: the faith produced by Jesus’
resurrection has been shown to have a profound and world changing effect on the experience of
other people in the world.
O’Collins’ sixth and last check is directed at you, the person considering this topic. What
effect would Jesus’ resurrection have on you personally? In his words, in this check the
individual must ask him or herself, “How does or could the truth of the resurrection prove itself
in the practice of my life? What kind of experience might I expect to have from believing the
resurrection to be true?”186 Such an answer is very individual and this paper therefore cannot
answer it for everyone, except to say that the resurrection would then grant authority to
everything Jesus has said.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE RESURRECTION
In the final section of this paper, we will examine those explanations which seek to show
that the resurrection did not happen or cannot be called a historical event. We will examine
various counter-theories for the verifiable events recorded in the Gospels, whether or not we can
trust the biblical record, consistency, and finally whether or not we can believe that someone
actually came back to life after dying.
184
O’Collins, 76.
185
Ibid., 75-76.
186
Ibid., 76.
33
Counter-Theories Based on the Recorded Events
In the counter-theories, some of the most well-known arguments against the resurrection
include the theory that the disciples’ resurrection experiences were strictly mental, the swoon
theory, and the more modern theory that Jesus’ resurrection was spiritual rather than bodily.187
The Hallucination/Wishful Thinking Theory
The mental theory states that the post-mortem appearances of Jesus were the result of
wishful thinking, hallucinations, or emotional instability. This theory was proposed fairly early,
found even in Celsus’ writings.188 Celsus points out that such experiences have happened to
thousands of people for various reasons and he, therefore, believes this is what started the beliefs
in Jesus’ resurrection.189 Origen counters by pointing to the context of these appearances and the
evidence:
His view would not be unreasonable if the visions had occurred by night. But his
idea of a vision in the daytime is not convincing when the people were in no way
mentally unbalanced and were not suffering from delirium or melancholy.
Because Celsus foresaw this objection he said that the woman was hysterical; but
there is no evidence of this in the scriptural account which was the source upon
which he drew for his criticism.190
Origen’s response proves to be the response to many of these counter-theories: they do not
adequately explain the information provided to us.
The Swoon Theory
The swoon theory suggests that Jesus did not actually die on the cross, but that he simply
swooned and was put into his tomb still alive, after which he revived and exited the tomb as
though he had risen from the dead. The suggestion is that Jesus’ wounds were not as bad as
recorded in the Scriptures. Again, Celsus suggested this theory in his early work. Origen
counters with the fact that Jesus died publicly.191 It is simply not logical that the Roman guards
and authorities would have failed to recognize that Jesus had died. Also, as noted above, Le
Camus points out that modern medical science shows that, had Jesus not died on the cross, the
187
Cabal, 120. Note: we will not deal with the conspiracy/fraud theory in this section because it has been
sufficiently addressed in the above sections on the changed lives of the disciples.
188
Ibid., 119.
189
Origen, 112.
190
Ibid., 113.
191
Cabal, 119.
34
conditions in the tomb would not have been sufficient to bring someone out of a swoon as strong
as the one Jesus must have had or, rather, even may have killed him if he were still alive!192 The
swoon theory, therefore, matches neither the evidence we have for what happened, nor medical
science as we now understand it.
Spiritual Resurrection Theory
A more modern theory suggests that Jesus’ resurrection was not physical, but spiritual.
Van den Brink explains,
The standard view on resurrection comprises at least the following four theses: (1)
In the opaque context of Jewish Hellenism at the beginning of the first century
“resurrection” could mean many different things. (2) One of the earliest and most
influential Christian writers, Paul, did not believe in physical resurrection, but had
a more “spiritual” view. (3) Early Christian resurrection language was originally
used to express the view that Jesus after his death was exalted into heaven in
some special way; only subsequently it became conflated with more literalist
views, as appearing e.g. in the empty tomb stories. (4) Given the current scientific
worldview, it is undeniable that whatever happened to Jesus’ body, it was not
“raised from the dead” as the gospels suggest (at least when read at face value).193
Theological writer John J. Johnson writes that this concept has become popular because of the
reluctance of modern scholars to declare the resurrection a historical fact. Instead, they attempt
to say that it has occurred in a “history beyond history.”194 Others believe that asserting Jesus’
resurrection as a historical event takes away from the theological meaning attached to it in the
Scriptures, adding that these events rather touch on an eschatological reality that cannot be
expressed in human words.195
In response to this, Cabal points to the Gospel of John, “Thomas may have been willing
to believe Jesus was raised as a spirit but not bodily, which explains why Thomas needed not just
to see but to touch the risen Jesus.”196 Van den Brink agrees: Thomas only came to faith after he
was convinced that Jesus had truly been raised from the dead.197 Such an understanding of the
resurrection does not really fit with what the Gospel accounts describe. Cabal further asserts,
192
Le Camus, 484-485.
193
Brink, “How to speak with intellectual and theological decency on the resurrection of Christ,” 410.
194
John J. Johnson, “Hans Frei as unlikely apologist for the historicity of the resurrection,” The Evangelical
Quarterly 76, no. 2 (April 2004), 137-138.
195
Brink, “Christian faith without arguments?” 109.
196
Cabal, 119.
197
Brink, “How to speak with intellectual and theological decency on the resurrection of Christ,” 418.
35
“First century Jews and Pagans alike would have understood a non-bodily resurrection as an
oxymoron.”198 Van den Brink also points out, in contrast to what modern scholars have
established,
Careful scrutiny shows that Paul understood Jesus’ comeback at Easter in terms of
a bodily resurrection, that the empty tomb tradition goes back to the earliest post
paschal times rather than being a later invention, that the gospel writers
considered Jesus’ resurrection as a real historical event.199
Van den Brink’s opinion seems to fit much more with Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 15, where
he points out people to whom Jesus appeared as evidence that Jesus’ rose from the dead, as well
as the fact that the entire Christian faith is useless if Jesus has not been raised from the dead. His
clear point is that if there is no resurrection, then there is no reason to live the way the apostles
preached.200 Furthermore, van den Brink asserts, “the disanalogous, eschatological character
does not make historical inquiry into the resurrection either impossible… or inappropriate.”201
Furthermore, this view of a spiritual resurrection rather than a physical resurrection has brought
problems for many Evangelicals as well. “A good deal of liberal theology is premised on the
mistaken notion that people can embrace the symbolic meaning of an event while denying the
event ever literally took place.”202 O’Collins dismisses such ideas because they “not only fail to
match the claim made by the apostolic witnesses, but also do not call for any detailed discussion
of public checks and evidence.”203 Smith sees no disconnect between the theological and
historical natures of Jesus’ resurrection. “The meaning of the resurrection is a theological
matter, but the fact of the resurrection is a historical matter; the nature of the resurrection body of
Jesus may be a mystery, but the fact that the body disappeared from the tomb is a matter to be
decided upon by historical evidence.”204 By the Gospel accounts, and the evidences from the
early Christian church, all indications point to Jesus’ resurrection being a physical bodily return
to life after death.
198
Cabal, 116.
199
Brink, “How to speak with intellectual and theological decency on the resurrection of Christ,” 414-415.
200
1 Corinthians 15:3-8, 14-17, 19, 30-32
201
Brink, “How to speak with intellectual and theological decency on the resurrection of Christ,” 417.
202
Gregory A. Boyd and Paul R. Eddy, Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical
Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009), 93.
203
O’Collins, 68-69.
204
Smith, 386. (Italics in original.)
36
The Integrity of the Bible
We have looked at a number of counter-theories to explain the more easily verifiable
events recorded in the Gospels. In this section, we will look at counter-theories which attack the
integrity of the biblical records. The main questions in this category deal with whether the
Gospels are simply copies of other dying-rising myths, from where they actually did come, and
how are we to deal with the discrepancies in the different Gospels.
Dying-Rising Myths
The first theory in this category questions whether the Gospels are simply copies of an
earlier dying-rising myth from other cultures. This theory is as early as Celsus, who claimed that
“Jesus’ resurrection was just a poor copy… of pagan heroes having descended to Hades and
returned.”205 Celsus believed that, in the case of these pagan stories, such heroes simply
disappeared for a time and then showed themselves again claiming to have returned from
Hades.206 Origen responds to this theory by pointing out that Jesus did not simply disappear, he
was crucified publicly.207 It was nothing like such stories of the past. Johnson makes the point
that, while there are similar “dying-rising” myths in other cultures, Jesus’ resurrection is
significant because the account contains an “unsubstitutable individual whose mysterious
identity is not ineffably behind the story but is inseparable from the unsubstitutable events
constituting it, with the resurrection as its climax.”208 In Johnson’s opinion, these similar myths
contain characters who have no significance. Anyone could take their place in the story without
much change. In Jesus’ resurrection, however, no one could take Jesus’ place without the story
being completely changed. C. S. Lewis says it more clearly,
The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the
Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend
and imagination to the earth of history. It happens – at a particular date, in a
particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a
Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person
crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate.209
205
Cabal, 119.
206
Origen, 110.
207
Ibid.
208
Johnson, 137.
209
C. S. Lewis, “Myth Became Fact,” in God in the Dock, ed. Walter Hooper (Grand Rapids, MI: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970), 66-67. (Italics in original.)
37
The significant difference between these dying-rising myths and Jesus’ resurrection is that the
story of Jesus can be placed specifically within human history, while other similar-sounding
myths have no such connection.
The Origin of the Gospel Accounts
The next category of theories against the integrity of the Gospels involves how we got the
Gospel accounts which we currently have. As we observed in West’s explanation of where the
Gospels came from, much of this work involves simply telling a story which can explain the data
we currently have. In contrast to West’s explanation, Professor Bart Ehrman offers this
explanation,
The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, but were written 30-60 years after
the events, and are unreliable because they were changed during their oral
transmission as evidenced by discrepancies… the resurrection stories result from
corrupted oral transmissions twisted over time by Christians zealous to win
converts.210
The task, then, is to fit such stories with the data we have. Were the Gospels written by the
apostles or approved by them, or are they simply the result of corrupted oral traditions? Cabal
records yet another explanation:
Disciples in their disappointment over Jesus’ death, turned to the scriptures. They
found texts that made sense to them that the Messiah would die and be vindicated
or exalted… so Christians started circulating the story of his resurrection… Five
years later they didn’t know where the stories had started. Nobody could go to
the tomb to check; the body had decomposed. Believers who knew he had been
raised from the dead started having visions of him… On the basis of these stories,
narratives were constructed and circulated and eventually we got the Gospels of
the New Testament written 30, 40, 50, 60 years later.211
Again, a logical story; the question remains, which story best fits the data we have? Some call
these views the “no access” view of the resurrection. The idea is that there are no true
eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection.212 Cabal explains his opinion of Ehrman’s strategy,
“Ehrman utilizes creative reasoning to arrive at his theory… The evidence adduced by Ehrman
for all of this consists of alleged inconsistencies in the Gospels coupled with historical
210
Cabal, 125.
211
Ibid., 129.
212
Ibid., 125.
38
methodological naturalism.”213 In response, Wright contends that, even if one were to assume
that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses,
The very strong historical probability is that when Matthew, Luke and John
describe the risen Jesus, they are writing down very early oral tradition,
representing three different ways in which the original astonished participants told
the stories.214
Wright accounts for the discrepancies as simply different points of view telling the same story.
Here, we have two different explanations for the same information. A proper examination must
attempt to account for all the data currently available. For example, one theory contends that the
stories about Jesus’ resurrection spread well after Jesus’ body had decayed so no one could go
and confirm the empty tomb claim. Cabal, however, asks, “What of the Jewish practice of
collecting the bones into ossuaries after decomposition of the body?”215 Ehrman may respond
that Jesus was not actually buried in his own tomb as the Gospels record. Professor Ambrose
Fleming finds Ehrman’s whole theory to be suspect. According to Fleming,
We take the facts of astronomy on the evidence of astronomers who do not
contradict each other. This being so, we can ask ourselves whether it is probable
that such book, describing events that occurred about thirty or forty years
previously, could have been accepted and cherished if the stories of abnormal
events in it were false or mythical.216
Fleming does not believe it possible that people who had been alive when Jesus died would have
been unable to remember those events well enough to investigate the claims about Jesus’
resurrection. He explains:
No one could now issue a biography of Queen Victoria, who died thirty-one years
ago, full of anecdotes which were quite untrue. They would be contradicted at
once. They would certainly not be generally accepted and passed on as true.
Hence, there is a great improbability that the account of the resurrection given by
Mark, which agrees substantially with that given in the other Gospels, is a pure
invention. This mythical theory has had to be abandoned because it will not bear
close scrutiny.217
Fleming believes that it is simply not possible for such stories to be spread about Jesus’ life
while so many people who had been there were still living. The data seems to favor those
213
Cabal, 129-130.
214
Wright, 611.
215
Cabal, 130.
216
Smith, 427-428.
217
Ibid., 428.
39
explanations of the origins of the Gospels which show those same accounts to be written or
approved by the eyewitnesses of Jesus’ resurrection.
Contradictions in the Gospel Accounts
As we have seen in these theories that seek to discredit the integrity of the Gospels, many
of them claim as their starting point the contradictories within the Gospels. For example,
Matthew says that there were two women who went to the tomb, Mark names three, Luke names
three (with one different name than Mark has) and also adds “the others with them,” and John
only mentions Mary Magdalene going to the tomb.218 The Gospels contain a number of similar
differences, which many scholars believe to be indications of corruptions of what originally
happened. Scholars have countered these attacks in varied ways. Van den Brink points out,
“These discrepancies are largely what might be expected given such an extraordinary event and
reflect only minimal adjustments and theological elaboration.”219 Many adopt this view, using
the example that if ten different people saw a car accident, rarely will all of their testimonies be
exactly the same. In fact, it is often suspicious when all the testimonies are exactly the same.
The further problem with these claims of inconsistencies between the Gospels is that they are
“not relevant unless [one] can show them to be irresolvable, lie at the heart of the narrative rather
than in the details, and that it’s impossible that any one of the Gospels get the facts correct.”220
Pointing to the differences in the Gospel accounts alone does not prove that the Gospels are
unreliable, because even one explanation of how these differences could possibly make sense
completely invalidates the entire argument. Cabal also points out that these differences are
found in the small and inconsequential details rather than in the main important events,
The Gospels all agree that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified in Jerusalem by
Roman authority during the Passover feast… He died within several hours and
was buried Friday afternoon... Certain women… including Mary Magdalene,
who is always named, having observed his interment, visited his tomb early
Sunday morning, only to find it empty. Thereafter, Jesus appeared alive from the
dead to his disciples, including Peter, who then became proclaimers of the
message of his resurrection.221
218
Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; Luke 24:1, 10; John 20:1
219
Brink, “How to speak with intellectual and theological decency on the resurrection of Christ,” 415.
220
Cabal, 127.
221
Ibid.
40
If the Gospels disagreed on these facts which actually have some weight in this debate, then the
discrepancies would require much more explaining. Since they only deal with details that add
virtually nothing to the discussion, there really is no reason to dwell on them further.
Philosophical Arguments
We have now dealt with counter-theories that address both the events recorded in the
Gospels and which seek to discredit the Gospel accounts. In the last section of this paper, we
will examine some of the more philosophical arguments such as consistency, whether or not we
can believe someone who died actually came back to life, and assumptions.
Consistency
Consistency is one of the most pointed aspects of this debate. As we read above in the
quote from Powell about the historical Jesus, scholars seek to find only what is verifiable about
Jesus in a way that is free from both religious and anti-religious bias.222 This sounds great on
paper, but it is quite difficult in practice. For example, Cabal records a debate between William
Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman, in which Craig points to the four historical facts (examined above)
which can only be explained by the resurrection.223 Craig further points out that the majority of
New Testament scholars agree that Craig’s four points are historically verifiable. Ehrman
responds that just because the majority agrees with Craig does not mean they are correct. 224
True, the majority view is not always the correct view. However, Ehrman claims that these
scholars “agree with Craig’s four points—which seem to infer the resurrection—because they are
biased like Craig due to believing NT scripture.”225 Is all the work of these scholars, therefore,
to be ignored because they have a religious bias? And what about those who agree with
Ehrman? Can they prove that their own work does not contain an anti-religious bias? Both sides
would struggle to prove their point of view free from one bias or the other.
Powell’s definition of history continues on to say that historians cannot prove the
miracles attributed to Jesus verifiable, “at least, not in accord with any criteria that are normally
employed for historical research.”226 The struggle, therefore, is consistency. How can we
222
Powell.
223
Cabal, 125.
224
Ibid., 128.
225
Ibid.
226
Powell.
41
examine a historical figure as unique as Jesus Christ in a way consistent with how we examine
any other figure of history? Scholars seem to disagree on this point as well. Whereas Powell
says that this is impossible, Professor Craig Keener states, “I contend that if skeptics really
treated the Gospels as they treat other historical documents, they would be less skeptical. Using
standard historical methods, we can challenge many skeptics’ doubts about Jesus.”227 Rather
than attempt to prove one side or other guilty of inconsistencies, we will only examine two
inconsistencies which advocates of the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection must address.
Other Religions on the Resurrection
The first question asks, what do other religions say about the resurrection? If we are to
claim that the Gospels are an accurate record of what happened, O’Collins asks, “To what extent
is it advisable and even obligatory to consider the claims of other religions about what happened
to Jesus after death?”228 Powell proposes a similar attack on Keener,
Craig Keener, for example, authored a detailed two-volume work on why the
miracles attributed to Jesus should be accepted as authentic, historical events. He
maintains that a refusal to recognize the historicity of events that are deemed
“supernatural” stems from an anti-religious form of bigotry that is at least
culturally biased and probably racist. Others wonder if he would apply the same
reasoning to miracles reported in the Qu’ran or Book of Mormon.
Are we consistent if we claim that the miracles of the Bible happened but that the miracles
recorded in other religious books or what such religions claim about Jesus’ resurrection have no
historic value?
Similar Historical Events
The second question regarding consistency asks, how do we deal with similar events
recorded in history? O’Collins gives the example of Queen Elizabeth I, who reportedly died in
the 1600s, was buried, “but after a month appeared alive, resumed the throne and governed her
kingdom for three more years before dying again.”229 O’Collins asks if it is consistent to
attribute this case, “to the knavery and folly of men… even though it was attested by the Queen’s
contemporaries and accepted by all the historians who treat of England.”230 O’Collins does point
227
Cabal, 122.
228
O’Collins, 77.
229
Ibid., 72.
230
Ibid.
42
out that this case is significantly different from Jesus’ resurrection because “early Christians
never proposed that Jesus had been merely reanimated to resume life under normal human
conditions and die once again some time later.”231 But his point remains clear: in this case, “no
amount of evidence and, specifically, no number of alleged appearances of someone who was
dead and buried could ever count as a reliable sign that a resurrection had taken place.”232 Are
we being consistent if we hold that Jesus’ resurrection happened, but Queen Elizabeth I’s did
not?
These questions of consistency pose some great arguments, not necessarily against the
historicity of Jesus’ resurrection, but against those who believe it happened. A proper response
to these arguments would require a sufficient examination of the historical documents of other
religions or similar events in question. This paper does not have the time or space to properly
explain them, but for now will simply refer to the above section which dealt with the origin of
the Gospels.
Resurrection is Impossible
Now that we have examined the many theories proposed against the historical
verification of Jesus’ resurrection, we will now turn to the core argument against Jesus’
resurrection: it is impossible for someone who has died to come back to life. Granted, not all
theories have their base in this axiom, but it is a powerful starting point for many arguments
against Jesus’ resurrection. Can we really believe that a resurrection actually happened? Cabal
explains what he calls the “no analogy” position, “Since the contemporary historian has never
experienced a resurrection, he is disallowed from writing about one in the past.”233 For example,
in Ehrman and Craig’s debate mentioned above, Ehrman offers the following argument,
Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past, and by
definition a miracle is the least probable occurrence. And so, by the very nature
of the canons of historical research, we can’t claim historically that a miracle
probably happened. By definition, it probably didn’t. And history can only
establish what probably did.234
231
O’Collins, 72-73.
232
Ibid., 73.
233
Cabal, 126.
234
Ibid., 125.
43
Ehrman’s line of thought leads to the conclusion, “There cannot be historical probability for an
event that defies probability, even if the event did happen.”235 In response, defenders of the
historicity of Jesus’ resurrection have pointed out that this philosophy really works both ways.
Dr. A. C. Ivy asserts,
On the basis of historical evidence of existing biological knowledge, the scientist
who is true to the philosophy of science can doubt the bodily resurrection of Jesus
Christ, but he cannot deny it. Because to do so means that he can prove that it did
not occur. I can only say that present-day biological science cannot resurrect a
body that has been dead and entombed for three days. To deny the resurrection of
Jesus Christ on the basis of what biology now knows is to manifest an unscientific
attitude according to my philosophy of the true scientific attitude.236
If historians want to claim that Jesus resurrection did not happen because modern science cannot
prove a resurrection to be possible, they really are not being true to the scientific method. Cabal
too weighs in with the same argument, “Dr. Ehrman says that the historian cannot say anything
about God. Therefore, he cannot say that God’s existence is improbable. But if he can’t say
that, neither can he say that the resurrection of Jesus is improbable. So Dr. Ehrman’s position is
literally self-refuting.”237 Cabal also points out that this argument really comes across as a
reason not to consider the arguments proposed in favor of the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection.
He explains, “No matter how one rules out the possibility of miracles, one has still ruled them
out—and has done so arbitrarily. Ehrman’s maneuver looks like a smoke screen behind which
he avoids responding to the historical data at issue.”238 To dismiss the resurrection simply
because one thinks a resurrection is impossible is to ignore the historical data available to us,
rather than to carefully and seriously examine it.
Assumptions
Finally, we cannot consider the debate of whether or not Jesus’ resurrection is historically
verifiable without speaking about our assumptions. Cabal explains,
Judging the probability of an event includes more than just weighing specific
evidence, it includes the background knowledge we bring to the table.
Background knowledge is everything we know or assume about the world prior to
examining any evidence in light of a hypothesis. Background knowledge, such as
235
Cabal, 126.
236
Smith, 22. (Italics in original.)
237
Cabal, 127.
238
Ibid., 126.
44
whether God does miracles and we can know them, affects probability that our
hypothesis will explain the evidence. What makes probability calculations
controversial is finding agreement on the background knowledge, and how prior
and posterior probabilities should be understood.239
These assumptions really rule the entire debate. Van den Brink states that judging the
resurrection reports as trustworthy or not really depends on whether or not one believes that an
event like the resurrection could happen in the first place.240 If one does not believe a
resurrection to be possible, in many cases, no amount of evidence will be able to convince such a
person otherwise, though there are exceptions. Wright states, “It will always be possible for
ingenious historians to propose yet more variations on the theme of how the early Christian
belief could have arisen, and taken the shape it did, without either an empty tomb or appearances
of Jesus.”241 Furthermore, the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection requires a number of assumptions
that many people simply will not share. One must assume the existence of God, “a God who can
and does intervene in human history and who, in particular, was specially present, active and
revealed in the history of Israel.”242 In addition, Jesus’ resurrection presupposes “some divine
revelation communicated through [Israel’s] history.”243 And still more, it also assumes that we
“have some substantially reliable information about his ministry, message and person.”244
Disagreement in these starting points makes debate over whether the resurrection happened or
not quite difficult, as we have seen.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, we examined the history and importance of apologetics concerning Jesus’
resurrection, what the main source (the Bible) has to say on the issue, and the main arguments
for and against the historicity of Jesus’ resurrection. We have seen intelligent points on both
sides. We have noted the power prior assumptions bring to the table. But for this paper, we will
rest on the following points. Most scholars agree that Jesus died, that he was buried, that he
239
Cabal, 126.
240
Brink, “How to speak with intellectual and theological decency on the resurrection of Christ,” 412.
241
Wright, 694.
242
O’Collins, 69.
243
Ibid.
244
Ibid.
45
appeared to his disciples after his death, and that the disciples demonstrated a dramatic change in
character after these events which lead to the spread of one of the most influential religions in
human history. No theory comes as close to explaining all of these events as does the bodily
resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. No historical evidence suggests anything other than a
resurrection. The only true question remaining is this: will you listen to what Jesus has to say?
46
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boyd, Gregory A., and Paul R. Eddy. Across the Spectrum: Understanding Issues in Evangelical
Theology. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2009.
Brink, Gijsbert van den. "Christian faith without arguments? The relevance of reasons for belief
in God." In Religion without ulterior motive, 101-118. Leiden: Brill Publishers, 2006.
Brink, Gijsbert van den. "How to speak with intellectual and theological decency on the
resurrection of Christ: a comparison of Swinburne and Wright." Scottish Journal Of
Theology 61, no. 4 (2008): 408-419.
Cabal, Ted. "Defending the resurrection of Jesus: yesterday, today and forever." The Southern
Baptist Journal Of Theology 18, no. 4 (2014): 115-137.
Celsus, and R. Joseph Hoffmann. On the True Doctrine: A Discourse against the Christians.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Edgar, R. M‘Cheyne. The Gospel of a Risen Saviour. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1892.
Green, Michael. Man Alive. Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1968.
Greenleaf, Simon. The testimony of the evangelists examined by the rules of evidence
administered in courts of justice. New York: J. Cockcroft & company, 1874.
Johnson, John J. "Hans Frei as unlikely apologist for the historicity of the resurrection." The
Evangelical Quarterly 76, no. 2 (April 2004): 135-151. ATLA Religion Database with
ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 1, 2015).
Le Camus, É. The Life of Christ. Translated by William A. Hickey. Vol. III. New York:
Cathedral Library Association, 1908.
Lewis, C. S. “Myth Became Fact,” in God in the Dock. Ed. Walter Hooper. Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970.
Little, Paul E. Know Why You Believe. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970.
McDowell, Josh. Evidence that Demands a Verdict Volume I: Historical Evidences for the
Christian Faith. San Bernardino, California: Here’s Life Publishers, Inc., 1986.
O'Collins, Gerald. "Believing in the risen Christ." In Gottes Zukunft - Zukunft der Welt: FS
Jürgen Moltmann, 68-77. München: Chr Kaiser Verlag, 1986.
Origen, and Henry Chadwick. Contra Celsum. Cambridge: University Press, 1953.
Powell, Mark Allan. “Historical Jesus Studies Today: An Update.” The Bible and Interpretation.
Accessed February 11, 2016. http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/2014/06/pow388006.shtml.
Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Christian Evidences. Chicago: Moody Press, 1957.
Smith, Wilbur M. Therefore Stand: Christian Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1965.
Stott, John R. W. Basic Christianity. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing
Company, 1971.
47
West, Gilbert. Observations on the History and Evidences of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. 4th
ed. London: Printed for R. Dodsley, 1749
Who Were the 12 Disciples? Accessed November 25, 2015.
http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/who-were-twelve-disciples.
Wright, N. T. The Resurrection of the Son of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2003.
48